Leões e Cordeiros

It's easy to imagine the 2007 drama Lions for Lambs performed on the stage, since the story is so dialogue-driven and only three simple sets-or merely four chairs, if a modern take was adopted-would be necessary. Three stories are all related, each including a dialogue between two characters, in a time-sensitive story during the current (depending on when you rent this movie) war in the Middle East. In one, a powerful Republican senator, Tom Cruise, tries to persuade a liberal journalist, Meryl Streep, to write a favorable piece on his efforts for the war. In another, a California university professor, Robert Redford, tries to get an apathetic student, Andrew Garfield, to care about current events. In the third, two soldiers and friends, Michael Pena and Derek Luke, find themselves isolated and fighting for their lives during a mission gone wrong.

If you're hooked already, like I was, you're going to want to rent this one. Plus, it's Robert Redford's baby (meaning, he directed it) so you know it's going to be well-made and full of top-notch acting. If this ever does get turned into a stage play, I think it'll be a great success. Many theatergoers will enjoy the witty dialogue and agree with the message. A word of warning, though: if you find yourself agreeing with Tom Cruise as the movie starts, you might not enjoy the rest of it. I wouldn't exactly classify this film as a "message movie," but it definitely has a theme. If you're a Republican, there's a chance you might not like it.

Thumbs are of no use in talking about Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs." Sticking them up or down makes little sense. It's not that kind of movie. What kind is it? Pretty much without a category.

The time is the present, Bush II is president, there is an unending war in the Middle East, the setting is present-day D.C., everything looks documentary-realistic. It could be a Sunday-morning panel discussion, but the cast consists of a bevy of stars, performing magnificently, with a script that seems to be formed by headlines from today's newspapers.

At the center of the film is a lengthy, unlikely, but brilliant duet of a an interview between a veteran, nobody's-fool political reporter (Meryl Streep) and a young hotshot NeoCon senator (Tom Cruise), both utterly believable, notwithstanding the challenge of some lame lines by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan for Cruise. Still, overall, the business between the two is the "people's business," about the lethal foreign-policy bungling of a war of choice, now running longer than World War II. (These are not editorial comments, but rather a report on what the film says.)

While dissecting the Iraqi disaster, and hearing some surprising and obviously manipulating admissions of errors from Cruise's hawkish senator, the issue at hand is the senator - a key military adviser to the President - trying to steer Streep's skeptical journalist into "selling" a new plan of attack in Afghanistan, something she instantly recognizes as a throwback to failed strategy in Vietnam.

Alternating with the interview segments are battle scenes in Afghanistan where two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are risking their lives in implementing that new plan. Then, by a stretch and rather awkwardly, there sits Redford's professor in his West Coast college office, pulling the story together between the two lion-like Rangers, who were his students, and a bright, troubled student (Andrew Garfield) who lost his way, baa, baa, baa.

Significant and entertaining, thought-provoking and reality-based sad, mostly well-written, and exceptionally well-acted, "Lions for Lambs" is likely to leave the audience with the feeling of having participated in an important happening, but perhaps not quite knowing what it was.

Gushing about Streep is almost embarrassing, but... Once again, she transcends text, expectations, whatever you may anticipate, and gives a performance to remember and treasure. Her expressions, body language, silences create a character with a life of her own, a "real person" we, the audience, feel as if we have known always, intimately.

I came to this film with it already square in my mind what I was getting into. The media and the reviews here had already informed me that this is the liberal media having yet another dig at the Bush administration and the policies in Iraq etc. Knowing that, and sharing those views roughly, I decided to watch it but did hope that it would not be too clumsy as a fictional attack on a subject that is already covered everywhere you look. What I got though was not that but something much more interesting and something much more unexpected. What I got was a film that more or less pushed the political points to one side and challenged those on the bench of politics to get involved rather than just sitting there moaning. It took me by surprising but essentially this is the reason for the entire film – not to bash Bush, not to condemn Iraq, not to push Democrat policies but just to challenge the viewer.

In this regard it works really well and it is hard to argue with the points about taking part in society rather than just focusing on one's self and I particularly liked the way that it did not condemn those who do that with a weapon, with politics, with reporting to help others be involved etc. I can understand why it has gotten this "liberal" tag because of who made it and because it is "intelligent" but it doesn't deserve this because it generally does keep the neutrality reasonably well. Of course though there is a slant to the left on what it is saying but not to the extent where ti does feel like you are being preached at – this is not a Michael Moore film here.

Nor is it a perfect film though. Those looking to be told a story and nothing more will find themselves disappointed because, although there is a narrative flow to it, this is not really what it is about. Instead it relies heavily on engaging the viewer's brain and making the audience think – that way, how the film ends is not all that important because you carrying on mulling over things for yourself as you leave the cinema. For me this happened but for others I can understand why the film would have come across boring, pointless and open-ended; I don't agree with you – but I can see how it happened.

The cast are all very good though because everyone understands the need to sell their characters. Cruise plays very well as the politician and the film treats him with respect as a character. He plays well with Streep, who is equally good and uses her performance to let the media have a kick that it does deserve. Redford and Garfield provide the meat of the piece and their simple discussion comes over natural and effective in presenting the challenge to the viewer. Peña and Luke have simpler characters but are engaging as students and soldiers. It is very much an ensemble piece and everyone does work well in their various twosomes, the support cast may have Berg, Dunn and other familiar faces but really it is about the three pairs, all of whom work well.

Lions for Lambs has been lumped in with anti-Bush and anti-Iraq films and will have been dismissed by many as just about piece of left-wing propaganda – and this is a shame because this is far from the truth. It is not a perfect film in some regards but it is not preaching but rather challenging all viewers, no matter what you think, to get involved, to take part, to question things, to think for one's self. It is thought-provoking and challenging and for that it is well worth seeing for yourself.

Good directors always have a point of view, and Robert Redford is no exception. Once a gorgeous leading man, he has emerged in the past years as a fine director. What he's always been is a political and environmental activist. So "Lions for Lambs," coming from him, should be no surprise.

The film, which runs only 88 minutes, shows us three scenarios: a Senator (Tom Cruise) handing an intelligent reporter (Meryl Streep) a "new plan" for the war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a strategy from the Vietnam War that didn't work; a professor (Redford) prodding a lazy student (Andrew Garfield) about his beliefs and urging him to be an active, not passive participant in the world; and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) behind enemy lines in freezing Afghanistan. The reporter doesn't want to write the story given to her by the Senator because she feels it's false, but she needs her job; the hawk Senator is, after all, only doing his job, as is the professor; and the two soldiers are doing theirs.

This could have been a stunning film - as it is, it does hold interest despite being very talky. The stark picture of the soldiers juxtaposed with the Senator in his well-tailored suit ("says he in the air-conditioned room," Streep reminds him as he's talking about the war) is a sad reminder that for all the plans, the statistics and the estimates, soldiers are human beings, and young human beings at that, committed to what they're doing - and the professor's student could easily have been one of them, freezing in Afgahanistan instead of contemplating his life. In fact, the two soldiers were the professor's students.

Despite what others have said, there aren't any true good guys or bad guys in "Lions for Lambs." Talk is cheap (and there's plenty of it in this movie) - it's easy, detached from a set of circumstances, to intellectualize it or to work it like a chess set. It's easy to say you don't believe something and won't write it - when your job is threatened, you fold. What the film has is two heroes. Despite what everybody talks about in the movie, two people literally put their lives on the line. For what? Well, that's for you to decide.

Lions for Lambs is a current issue film that deals with several relevant topics. The central plot revolves around essentially three settings that don't directly affect each other through action. They do however affect each other through course of action presented in debate. Cruise plays Jasper Irving, a GOP senator with a new plan of action for the war on terror. Streep is a veteran reporter who is interviewing him. Simultaneously, Redford is a college professor who has called a student into his office. A conflict in Afghanistan is taking place which is linked to the aforementioned plot lines.

Lions for Lambs surprised me with it's balance. I'm an open Republican, and felt that this movie was not a cliché attack against the power that be. The Cruise character could have been given irrefutable hatred material. He could have been caught in a scandal. He could have alienated others with religious furor. Instead he is real and forms educated arguments. He seems rational, and passionate; he can also make a turn to present himself to the public. I don't see this as an attack, but one of the many skills politicians need to succeed. With all they go through and the decisions they have, they don't want the mocking that crying before the camera would carry. The left is represented by Redford's professor and Streep's reporter. Both are treated with rationale conviction. Neither has a clear anti-GOP agenda. Both of these characters even go as far as to acknowledge the error in the ways of their side. If there is a message to the film, it is that we are being sheltered from reality. It was clear to this viewer that Redford is stating that we are placing focus on the minuscule while matters of true importance are treated as second rate. Surely this is something we all can agree on in Lions for Lambs and this comes into fruition as the film evolves.

Aside from the political commentary, which it makes no dance around, this a dialog heavy film. Characters are pinned against their situations which cause them to restrain from a course of action both physically and metaphorically. The conversations are engaging, but it would be arguably more favorable to allow the characters interaction. A few additional technical merits could have gone a long way. For example, the CGI of the Chinook helicopter was not up to par; a memorable score and unique cinematography are also absent. The screenplay is inherently foiled by remarkable coincidence; but there was no way around that. At a scant 88 minutes, Lions for Lambs is quick to get to the point but it is over too fast. These miscues keep it from perfection. Served as they are, Lions for Lambs is thinking person's film that comes highly recommended.